Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think with Benghazi they basically fucked up by trying to associate it with the YouTube video to begin with instead of taking a "wait and see" approach. When it became obvious it was totally unrelated they were stuck, they didn't want to say "we shouldn't have spoken so soon" and they didn't want to reverse themselves. I think that lead to a period of indecision, then they release more details. It all happened pretty quickly and doesn't seem like a big deal to me, I don't really think there's a conspiracy. I think they just misplayed the first step and then ran around like chickens with their heads cut off for a brief period when they realized they had to do a public about face.

In most incidents like this officials take a "wait and see" attitude to start with. That's usually how the Obama administration played things, for reasons I'll never fully understand they chose to blame an internet video very early on. That was their mistake, and they paid for it by getting egg on their face, but I don't actually think there was any concerted conspiracy. The public was not kept in the dark for all that long, I think when Obama and Clinton were blaming the YouTube video they generally had no idea what they were talking about. I don't think they were trying to cover up a known terrorist attack.

[CountDeMoney]

for reasons I'll never fully understand they chose to blame an internet video very early on.

Because it was the most logical conclusion for State officials to come to in light of the Cairo riots which were, in fact, fomented by the video within the same 24 hour period.  It made sense at the time, as opposed to an Al Qaeda-affiliated surprise attack hidden within a group of rioters--but this is what happens when the State Department is the organization tasked with taking the policy lead in an environment with little plugged-in input from the Department of Defense or the CIA.  For a fluid, confusing environment such as post-Mad Dog Libya, that's always going to be a risk.  Considering there were no real intel assets on the ground in eastern Libya at the time talking to State, and no DoD assets at all beyond the compound in Tripoli, naturally it took time to flesh things out between State, DoD and the CIA.

But we can always use more quality Dan Issa and Rand Paul-frothing, particularly when Ambassador Pickering offers to testify and gets rejected.

[derspiess]

Because it was the most logical conclusion for State officials to come to in light of the Cairo riots which were, in fact, fomented by the video within the same 24 hour period.

Yet you had it figured out correctly early on.  And a senior DoS person even correctly identified the specific group responsible the day after the attack.  All of our people in Libya thought it was a deliberate attack.  But yeah, it made so much sense to blame the video and call it spontaneous.

[derspiess]

From the New Yorker, of all places

It's a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration's response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

[CountDeMoney]

Because it was the most logical conclusion for State officials to come to in light of the Cairo riots which were, in fact, fomented by the video within the same 24 hour period.

Yet you had it figured out correctly early on.  And a senior DoS person even correctly identified the specific group responsible the day after the attack.  All of our people in Libya thought it was a deliberate attack.  But yeah, it made so much sense to blame the video and call it spontaneous.

Whatever, derMcCain, go back and read archived news from September 12th, and how open source coverage of the Cairo and Benghazi violence were completely dovetailing.
And yeah, of course it was a deliberate attack.  The EXACT reasons for it were a bit cloudy in the first 72 hours, however.

[CountDeMoney]

Coverup.  Whatever.

I don't recall George Schultz being subjected to the same scrutiny after two US embassies, an embassy annex and a shitload of Marines were vaporized on his watch.

Sometimes diplomats die, particularly taking the lead in amorphous clusterfuck environments.  Servicemen certainly do; civilians aren't immune either.

[merithyn]

How is that at the expense of anyone? Would the dead ambassador come back from the dead if Obama had said it was terrorism?

How is him NOT saying it is terrorism help him anyway?

It doesn't even make any sense if it is true. Beghazi being a terrorist attack isn't going to make everyone not vote for Obama - if anything, historically it has the opposite effect.

Oh never mind, this has become "revealed truth" to the nutjobs. It is up there with birth certificates and secret Islam. The only people it needs to convince are those who aren't interested in anything BUT being convinced.

That's kind of my take, too.

So what? Ultimately, what does it really matter? I mean, Christ, Bush got away with invading an entire country by saying that he thought - THOUGHT - that there were weapons of mass destruction (and there weren't), and now his party is flipping out over "a terrorist act" versus "terrorism"? Seriously?

[derspiess]

Coverup.  Whatever.

I don't recall George Schultz being subjected to the same scrutiny after two US embassies, an embassy annex and a shitload of Marines were vaporized on his watch.

Sometimes diplomats die, particularly taking the lead in amorphous clusterfuck environments.  Servicemen certainly do; civilians aren't immune either.

Yeah, good point.  I mean, what difference does it make anyway???

[Berkut]

He ran on killing bin Laden, so if it comes out that it was bin Laden who killed the ambassdaor, then ok, you have a point.

He never ran on any claim that he has stopped all terrorism. That is just stupid. Terrorism in general was not even a primary issue in the election cycle, despite Benghazi.

The Obama campaign is utterly comprehensive and super cautious. Their approach is not broad despite what you think are the "primary issues". It is surgical and 24x7 both before and after elections. The White House paraded drone killings of top AQ lieutenants over and over. The surge in Afghanistan was justified on grounds that terrorist cells had been dismantled. That Obama had successfully settled Iraq.

And public opinion followed. Democrats are no longer seen as weak on defense and security as they were under the Bush Administration. You really need to give Obama more credit.

All of that can be true, and the claim that Obama said he stopped all terrorism such that a single attack would be somehow a political issue is still false.

Obama is so surgical and careful, and yet they claim that they've stopped ALL TERRORISM FOREVER?

Bull.

Shite.

[CountDeMoney]

I mean, what difference does it make anyway???

Save the partisan sneering, please.  We'll see enough of that in commercials ad nauseum the next two elections from plenty of APPROVED 503(c)(4) groups as it is. 

[derspiess]

Save the partisan sneering, please. 

Sorry.  I'll just start following your oh-so-above-partisanship example

[CountDeMoney]

There's a good chap.

[garbon]

I have to say the Benghazi bit is rather dull. Let's say there was a coverup - is the contention that if the American people had known The Truth™ the election would have gone the other way?

[11B4V]

I have to say the Benghazi bit is rather dull. Let's say there was a coverup - is the contention that if the American people had known The Truth™ the election would have gone the other way?

I dont even think the GOP could have determined that with certainty before the election. Wasnt enough time.

[merithyn]

I have to say the Benghazi bit is rather dull. Let's say there was a coverup - is the contention that if the American people had known The Truth™ the election would have gone the other way?

I dont even think the GOP could have determined that with certainty before the election. Wasnt enough time.

Then why does it matter?